In Part Three, the penultimate segment in our examination of the third era in Scientology's criminal evolution, we'll look at how David Miscavige's assumption of power reflected a continuation of Hubbard's obsession with Scientology's ruthless utilitarianism, as well as how Miscavige's own violent, thuggish temperament reflected a Gotti-like use of fear as his primary mechanism of control. We'll also examine how Scientology's use of the legal system shifted from the harassment-focused days of Hubbard to a more nuanced strategic approach, as well as how several key incidents that occurred under Miscavige redefined how Scientology's La Cosa Nostra ("This thing of ours" or "Our thing") -like mindset operates to this day.

Miscavige as capo di tutti capi

While Miscavige's behavior during the Mission Holder shakeout was emblematic of his ruthless dedication to the cause, as well as reflecting his own "take no prisoners" personality, his later actions after Hubbard's death in 1986 were even more illuminating, as they offered a clear example of how Scientology under his authority would evolve over the following decades. More so, his actions therein made it abundantly clear that he was no Hubbard, nor was he going to try to be. Significantly, the controversy around his having seized control of Scientology from "Loyal Officers" Pat and Annie Broker, and later, his own conflicting courtroom testimony as to his then "official" role in the church versus the reality of the situation would continue to be provoke controversy. Questions about his legitimacy as LRH's successor would engender a pattern of secrecy, abuse of power, and up until his debut on Scientology TV in 2018, an unwillingness to be seen as the public "face" of Scientology. Aside from a disastrous 1992 TV interview with ABC's Ted Koppel, Miscavige's absence from the public domain has all the hallmarks of a reticent La Cosa Nostra (LCN) Don , one who orchestrates behind the scenes, allowing others to suffer the consequences of his own malevolence, poor judgement, and the organization's excesses.